I'm sad because people aren't reading what I'm saying. But I'm also happy because I know that I already explained why I'm right about what I say and the answers to their questions, so them not reading them is just ignoring them.

Disney Duster I've read most of your posts here, and you have, in no way, explained consistent or accurate or factual reason to why you're right. It'd be okay if your opinion was backed up by actual facts or problems you had with the movie, but this isn't the case. Not only have you been making up facts to fit your need, but you've been inconsistent and blatantly repeating the same things over and over again. Circular logic won't get you anywhere in a real world debate, so don't expect to get away with it with Disney fans.

Your posts are not only painful to read (I'd rather be castrated), but are unnecessarily long and full of filler that has no real rhyme or meaning. The above paragraph stands, making up facts isn't forming an opinion; it's forming a fantasy that is governed by your own rules. But the fact is that fantasy isn't reality, and it's time for you to stop pretending to be a true connoisseur such as many fans here actually are (and myself). Other people have explained this in bits, but I'm going to lay it out for you why everything in your post is wrong.

1. Stop repeating yourself.

Disney Duster wrote:

I already explained the past things Disney did keep faithful that they could have easily kept. You need to read where I've already said that in past posts.

Disney Duster wrote:

I already explained the past things Disney did keep faithful that they could have easily kept. You need to read where I've already said that in past posts.

Disney Duster wrote:

I already explained the past things Disney did keep faithful that they could have easily kept. You need to read where I've already said that in past posts.

No Duster, this isn't as smart as you think it is. It's just as stupid as you said it the first time, not need to say it two more times.

2. Stop claiming you know what Disney is if you do not understand the full scope of what Disney has done in the past.

I'll preface this one. Throughout this thread, you've been going on about how Tangled isn't true to Walt Disney form by making up non-facts about how different it is in adaptation compared to the classics such as The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast. The truth is, you have not made one coherent response why you believe this, as people have have already deconstructed why your opinion is basically non-existent - but rather is just a series of claiming stuff over and over again. This isn't arguing on your part, this is just stupidity, and bad posting conduct. I've been foruming for 7 years now straight, and I can tell you that you are one of the most offensive posters I've ever encountered on the internet; and I frequent 4chan. It isn't your "opinion" but the fact that you're using lies and misinformation to support it. I've encountered furries, pedophiles, extreme racists, and misogynist on the internet and none are as bad as the stuff I've been seeing you posting all over these forums.

Now let me go through this post and tell you why you really need to re-asses your outlook on life, and re-asses how you post on a civil forum in general.

Disney Duster wrote:

I already explained that the story needed to keep the characters' background to be Disney and they still could have and had the story.

This doesn't make any sense. There is no "Disney" style aside from the art style and setup used in the movies. Every old Disney movie was different from the other, and you'll notice this if you watch each in succession like I have. There are some exceptions, of course; Sleeping Beauty, Snow White, and Cinderella are very similar to each other. However there are approximately 16 Disney "Classic" movies which I consider to be everything from Snow White to Sleeping Beauty in the Disney canon, and only THREE of them are in a similar style and tone from each other. Disney was founded upon the philosophy that change and twists to familiar stories was interesting and new, and to this day the only one that has remained even remotely accurate is probably Snow White at best. Everyone else in the "Classic" era of Disney is very different from each other. Disney wasn't even really founded on the idea of pushing musicals all over the place like in the Renaissance era of Disney, even though that is what people think of when they think of Disney.

Speaking of the Renaissance era - that, my friend, is when Disney started becoming similar to each other. I think you're confusing the Renaissance era with Classic Disney, probably due to some type of blind nostalgia fanboyism, but the Renaissance era of Disney wasn't Disney in feel, or tone, or anything of that sort. Matter of fact it took a different approach and altered the classic tales even further with modernized concepts and characters and sometimes even destroying great classics (Hunchback of Notre Dame), and made all of the movies into these musical epics. It worked, cause they were still good movies, but the "Disney feel" of them is severely overstated. There is nothing about these movies that are even remotely similar to what Walt Disney did back in the day, or the people he worked with. For this matter, Disney grew a more modernized image of what they do and what they're good at.

So if you ever want to complain about how Disney has "fallen" cause they've stopped following Walt Disney, you're approximately 62 years late. Don't get me started on how different the films in between both eras are.

Disney Duster wrote:

And I did not instantly dislike the film because of the title I said that dampened my enjoyment and was one part of why I didn't like it and the humor was not the same it was way more modern, cutting, and cynical.

This is the same with any Disney movie in the Renaissance era, and a few in between and before it. Any complaint you have with Tangled, applies to The Little Mermaid also, and Beauty and the Beast too. Mind you how I'm actually stating a fact rather than making up one? Neat, huh?

Disney Duster wrote:

In the original The Little Mermaid she really did want to live on land with a human prince in addition to a soul, I read the book. Removing the talk about a soul was a Disney thing to do because Walt would do that for example he took out the religious stained-glass windows in Fantasia's last segment. But Tangled did un-Disney things.

Okay Disney Duster, I have a test for you. I'm convinced you don't really proof-read anything you type out for various reasons, but I won't delve into that. I have a test that I think you'll end up getting unexpected results from:

Read every post you made, as if it was another person on this board.

Go ahead and try it and then post the results, and you'll see why people are so bothered by what you're posting.

One day you're going to look back at your posts, and feel so awful you made them, that you're going to regress in a state where you start claiming you were "trolling all along." No, Disney Duster, I see through your guise already; you're no troll, which is sad cause that makes things worse in the long run. But you're going to use this excuse anyway, one day, and I'll be there to remind you that you aren't a troll, just a man who can't form a proper opinion for himself. That's how all self-proclaimed trolls begin...and end. The time for you to accept your defeat is now. You aren't a true connoisseur, and you never will be with this attitude.

To Disney's Divinity:

Big One wrote:

Disney's Divinity wrote:

Actually, DDuster has been very critical of the '90s era. I think the only reason he doesn't outright tear it apart is because he grew up with it, and has some fond memories.

And, personally, I do think the films from the '90s do have a certain feel that goes along with the older movies, although they have steep differences. But I agree that the films from the '90s are extremely formulaic--the problem with making so many films right on top of each other, with the same story ideas, and all in the musical vein.

I think something I've noticed about their modern films (as compared to old Disney) is the need to specifically define everything. Like the way every character must be given a specific name, and a specific motivation. I don't find that a detractor, but, taking Mermaid as example, old-Disney probably wouldn't have given Triton and Ursula names at all--they probably would've just been "the King" and "the Sea Witch." In some ways, that vagueness makes a story come across more timeless for some reason. Not that Mermaid needs help.

As far as Tangled goes, Flynn/Eugene is the only weird name in the movie. Mother Gothel has a classic sound to it--I can't remember if this is a name they came up with or that was in the original story.

Well I hope no one reads too much into my post; I love Renaissance Disney, and I wasn't critique it. I love Tangled too, even more-so than most Renaissance Disney films. Matter of fact if you find my tier list in another thread, you can see that I hold no bias against that era. But to say it has a Classic Disney "feel" is pretty ridiculous.

I'll explain, as I said there are only 3 films in the Disney era that I feel are even remotely similar. I should probably take that back, as there's also Saludos Amigos and The Three Caballeros, and Make Mine Music and Melody Time.

Aside from that, the following movies aren't similar to each other in any real way, and aim to tell different stories: Pinocchio, Fantasia, Fun and Fancy Free, The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad, Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan, Lady and the Tramp.

I might as well extend this to the post-Classic era of Disney too...well Robin Hood and The Jungle Book are very similar to each other. Then there's the movies that aren't similar: One Hundred and One Dalmatians, The Sword in the Stone, The Aristocats, The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, The Rescuers, The Fox and the Hound, The Black Cauldron, The Great Mouse Detective, Oliver & Company, The Rescuers Down Under.

And then it gets to the Renaissance era and what I like to call the "Renaissance revival era" with the two recent movies., where Disney starts getting REALLY similar: The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, The Lion King, Pocahontas, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Hercules, Mulan, Tarzan, Princess and the Frog, Tangled.

And then there are the other movies, Atlantis: The Lost Empire and Treasure Planet are similar to each other, but what about these: Fantasia 2000, Dinosaur, The Emperor's New Groove, Lilo and Stitch, Brother Bear, Home on the Range, Chicken Little, Meet the Robinsons, Bolt?

This means there are approximately 28/50 Disney films that aren't really similar to each other, and most of them are what people call "Classics." The "Disney feel" is practically non-existant, and seems to be some type of blind nostalgia fans tend to have. I've seen similar cases over the years and as I get older it gets more apparent to me.

So, if anyone had any doubts on whether Rapunzel will be joining the official Disney Princess line, the answer comes from the 2010 Year in Review of The Walt Disney Company:

Quote:

To celebrate the release of The Princess and the Frog on DVD and Blu-ray, Princess Tiana was officially welcomed into the Disney Princess court with a coronation ceremony. […] With books sold in more than 90 countries around the world, the franchise is poised to continue to grow in 2011 when it welcomes to the family Rapunzel, heroine of Walt Disney Pictures’ Tangled.

I suppose I should post my opinion on Tangled since this thread is moving slow.

I loved it! I've only seen it once, but I really want to watch it again once the Bluray comes out. I was really impressed with the characters and CGI - which is easily the most beautiful aspect of the movie. I don't think I can praise the CGI enough, it's really a work of pure art and I think people will see this as the years go on when Tangled becomes a truly memorable experience for the family that leaves an impact on the viewer outside of children.

On the characters: I could nitpick some aspects. Once you get into Tangled, you're immediately aware that both Flynn and Rapunzel's characters have been done before in Disney films. Flynn is Aladdin, and Rapunzel is Ariel; and there's really no denying it. However in a lot of ways, I think they're done better, in particular Flynn. Flynn is pretty funny and actually competent lead compared to the more loose and kind of youngish character of Aladdin. Flynn is a better Aladdin, and in some ways Rapunzel is a better Ariel (she's much more cuter imo). With Rapunzel you could also tell that the movie was really going full force with Glen Keane's foot fetish, which only got a single scene in The Little Mermaid.

Mother Gothel isn't as memorable as the great Disney villains such as Frollo or Gaston, but she holds up well on her own. She's better than most, which says a lot cause Disney has a huge catalog of villain characters. She also manages to be strangely alluring and sexy to me, which is also reflective in Rapunzel also. I think what's great about their relationship is, while Gothel is controlling, you could see a lot of her quirks in Rapunzel's character, just in a very young and care-free form.

Also I absolutely loved Maximus and Pascal, it's so refreshing to see a non-talking animal characters that actually manages to be more funny and awesome through their action rather than their dialogue. This harkens back to the Flying Carpet from Aladdin, which is still today one of my favorite characters in Disney history.

On the music: I'm going to be honest, I never watched Disney movies for the music, so it's kind of hard for me to judge this. There isn't much I can say, but the soundtrack was pretty good. It isn't as memorable as the songs from The Little Mermaid or Aladdin, but it holds up pretty well. In the very least, it's better than The Princess and the Frog and Hercules when it comes to it's score. At the most, the bar scene and the boat scene sticks out the most for me, really loved those two.

On the story: I actually really liked this aspect of the movie the most. Tangled's story is really intense in style and tone, without feeling obnoxious and actually feeling like it has weight on the characters and the world around it. The prime example for this is the chase scene when Rapunzel and Flynn fall into the water, and get trapped. This is a very beautiful little moment of character development between the two, and it was actually pretty terrifying. And then there's the moment with Flynn at the campfire with him and Rapunzel as he just drops his whole backstory by actually talking like a human rather than singing about, or flashing back to a scene with him as a kid. It really made things feel more real despite being in a fantasy world, and kind of harkens to the style of Lilo and Stitch in terms of character development.

Y'see the difference between Tangled and other medieval-fantasy Disney movies is that Tangled seems to be set in low fantasy rather than high fantasy, in a very Disney kind of way. I find this interesting cause low fantasy is usually stuff like the Song of Fire and Ice, not stuff from the average Disney movie. But if we really think about it, the setting in Tangled is actually kind of realistic. It's full of barbarians and thieves, there isn't any dragons, no talking animals (but they do have personality), no evil warlock overlords, and the only real fantasy element is Rapunzel's hair and the fact that magic exists in a very low-key form.

This is actually a very refreshing twist from standard Disney fantasyland movies, which usually have inspired locations from the real world but have things such as dwarves, god-like fairies, dragons, etc. Removing those aspects, kind of gives an audience an easy way into the character's places as Rapunzel and Flynn live in a world where a barbarian could kill or even rape them at any moment in the middle of their journey. Matter of fact, Mother Gothel encouraged Rapunzel not to go out into the world cause it was full of things like that.

It's really just things like that, that make Tangled one of the more finer stories Disney has done; and as the years go on I think it'll be more accepted by long-time fans even more-so than it is today.

8/10

_________________

Last edited by Big One on Fri Feb 04, 2011 11:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Finally saw Tangled 3D in cinema today when it debuted in Norway, and it was amazing! A true Disney-classic. The animation is beautiful, Alan Menken's songs are fantastic and I loved the characters. Tangled had action, drama, emotions and heart; a funny and touching film. I must see it several times at the cinema, and I can't wait for the Blu-ray. I laughed and cried and was totally blown away by it^^

Which lead to you saying it's why Disney is being s*** on in your matter-of-fact tone.

Since you finally said what I suspected for a long time, I think it really is that because I speak that way, people take it so badly. I try to speak as plainly as I can, without any frills or too many maybes or anything like that, and that's what I think has led to that. Anyway, on with the show...

Big One wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:

I'm sad because people aren't reading what I'm saying. But I'm also happy because I know that I already explained why I'm right about what I say and the answers to their questions, so them not reading them is just ignoring them.

Disney Duster I've read most of your posts here, and you have, in no way, explained consistent or accurate or factual reason to why you're right. It'd be okay if your opinion was backed up by actual facts or problems you had with the movie, but this isn't the case. Not only have you been making up facts to fit your need, but you've been inconsistent and blatantly repeating the same things over and over again. Circular logic won't get you anywhere in a real world debate, so don't expect to get away with it with Disney fans.

Your posts are not only painful to read (I'd rather be castrated), but are unnecessarily long and full of filler that has no real rhyme or meaning. The above paragraph stands, making up facts isn't forming an opinion; it's forming a fantasy that is governed by your own rules. But the fact is that fantasy isn't reality, and it's time for you to stop pretending to be a true connoisseur such as many fans here actually are (and myself). Other people have explained this in bits, but I'm going to lay it out for you why everything in your post is wrong.

I disagree with all of this so far. Generally, everything you say about my posts, I think the opposite.

Big One wrote:

1. Stop repeating yourself.

Disney Duster wrote:

I already explained the past things Disney did keep faithful that they could have easily kept. You need to read where I've already said that in past posts.

Disney Duster wrote:

I already explained the past things Disney did keep faithful that they could have easily kept. You need to read where I've already said that in past posts.

Disney Duster wrote:

I already explained the past things Disney did keep faithful that they could have easily kept. You need to read where I've already said that in past posts.

No Duster, this isn't as smart as you think it is. It's just as stupid as you said it the first time, not need to say it two more times.

I completely disagree.

Big One wrote:

2. Stop claiming you know what Disney is if you do not understand the full scope of what Disney has done in the past.

I'll preface this one. Throughout this thread, you've been going on about how Tangled isn't true to Walt Disney form by making up non-facts about how different it is in adaptation compared to the classics such as The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast. The truth is, you have not made one coherent response why you believe this, as people have have already deconstructed why your opinion is basically non-existent - but rather is just a series of claiming stuff over and over again. This isn't arguing on your part, this is just stupidity, and bad posting conduct. I've been foruming for 7 years now straight, and I can tell you that you are one of the most offensive posters I've ever encountered on the internet; and I frequent 4chan. It isn't your "opinion" but the fact that you're using lies and misinformation to support it. I've encountered furries, pedophiles, extreme racists, and misogynist on the internet and none are as bad as the stuff I've been seeing you posting all over these forums.

Now let me go through this post and tell you why you really need to re-asses your outlook on life, and re-asses how you post on a civil forum in general.

I disagree and generally think the opposite of most of this stuff as well.

Big One wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:

]I already explained that the story needed to keep the characters' background to be Disney and they still could have and had the story.

This doesn't make any sense. There is no "Disney" style aside from the art style and setup used in the movies. Every old Disney movie was different from the other, and you'll notice this if you watch each in succession like I have. There are some exceptions, of course; Sleeping Beauty, Snow White, and Cinderella are very similar to each other. However there are approximately 16 Disney "Classic" movies which I consider to be everything from Snow White to Sleeping Beauty in the Disney canon, and only THREE of them are in a similar style and tone from each other. Disney was founded upon the philosophy that change and twists to familiar stories was interesting and new, and to this day the only one that has remained even remotely accurate is probably Snow White at best. Everyone else in the "Classic" era of Disney is very different from each other. Disney wasn't even really founded on the idea of pushing musicals all over the place like in the Renaissance era of Disney, even though that is what people think of when they think of Disney.I think that there is a Disney style and a Disney essence that lives on in some movies and other things the company makes after Walt and that they mist try to keep. I believe in it. If there is no Disney essence, i.e. what Disney is, then there is no reason for the company to live on carrying the Disney name, and no reason for any of us to be here unless this was all just about the old Walt Disney movies they keep re-releasing.

Those movies you mentioned are not the only similar ones. All Disney Animated Features have similar messages of innocence, goodness, good winning over evil, belief, and themes of fantasy. Every single Disney Animated Feature features fantasy from either magic or talking animals, but often have both. Magic is in the first four films Walt made (don't forget Dumbo's feather and flying), and Bambi is a prince of the forest, it's all fairy tale like. This continues similarly to the other films. Their imagery is also generally more beautiful and fantasy-like than normal life or like other studios' work.

I will however agree that the pushing of musicals is a Disney Renaissance thing and not really a Disne thing, but the use of music to tell and push the story forward is a Disney thing. Walt always wanted "story songs" as he said.

Big One wrote:

[Speaking of the Renaissance era - that, my friend, is when Disney started becoming similar to each other. I think you're confusing the Renaissance era with Classic Disney, probably due to some type of blind nostalgia fanboyism, but the Renaissance era of Disney wasn't Disney in feel, or tone, or anything of that sort. Matter of fact it took a different approach and altered the classic tales even further with modernized concepts and characters and sometimes even destroying great classics (Hunchback of Notre Dame), and made all of the movies into these musical epics. It worked, cause they were still good movies, but the "Disney feel" of them is severely overstated. There is nothing about these movies that are even remotely similar to what Walt Disney did back in the day, or the people he worked with. For this matter, Disney grew a more modernized image of what they do and what they're good at.

So if you ever want to complain about how Disney has "fallen" cause they've stopped following Walt Disney, you're approximately 62 years late. Don't get me started on how different the films in between both eras are.

I do agree that the Renaissance films feel different from the classic classic Disney, but I still feel that the Renaissance films have become classic and that the Disney essence is kept in them as much as it needs to be. Things like The Hunchback of Notre Dame "destroying" a classic are actually keeping the Disney tradition of family-friendlyness and happy endings. I do think that in between the post-Walt and Renaissance eras are some movies that don't quite feel fully classic Disney, but it's more because of stuff like Robin Hood being animals and Oliver & Company being animals, and that era I am less sure of. However, I'm not too mad or finding too much wrong with that era.

Big One wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:

]And I did not instantly dislike the film because of the title I said that dampened my enjoyment and was one part of why I didn't like it and the humor was not the same it was way more modern, cutting, and cynical.

This is the same with any Disney movie in the Renaissance era, and a few in between and before it. Any complaint you have with Tangled, applies to The Little Mermaid also, and Beauty and the Beast too. Mind you how I'm actually stating a fact rather than making up one? Neat, huh?

That is not a fact. The fact is that in those movies you mentioned the backgrounds of main/major characters were not changed like in Tangled. For example there is a huge difference between a merchant who sells things becoming an inventore who sells things and a prince who becomes a thief. If you cannot see the big difference, that is your inability, which others may share, but alas. The humor (and everything) was more cutting and cynical and ironic and fast in Tangled than in the past. If you cannot get that, I still think it's your inability to tell, but that one is harder and I'm not completely sure of that one, just pretty sure, and so, I still talk about it here to let people know how I feel which is what a forum is for.

Big One wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:

In the original The Little Mermaid she really did want to live on land with a human prince in addition to a soul, I read the book. Removing the talk about a soul was a Disney thing to do because Walt would do that for example he took out the religious stained-glass windows in Fantasia's last segment. But Tangled did un-Disney things.

Okay Disney Duster, I have a test for you. I'm convinced you don't really proof-read anything you type out for various reasons, but I won't delve into that. I have a test that I think you'll end up getting unexpected results from:

Read every post you made, as if it was another person on this board.

Go ahead and try it and then post the results, and you'll see why people are so bothered by what you're posting.

One day you're going to look back at your posts, and feel so awful you made them, that you're going to regress in a state where you start claiming you were "trolling all along." No, Disney Duster, I see through your guise already; you're no troll, which is sad cause that makes things worse in the long run. But you're going to use this excuse anyway, one day, and I'll be there to remind you that you aren't a troll, just a man who can't form a proper opinion for himself. That's how all self-proclaimed trolls begin...and end. The time for you to accept your defeat is now. You aren't a true connoisseur, and you never will be with this attitude.

I already did that in the past, sometimes I stumbled upon my own posts and started reading them without knowing they were by me, in the search function, and I found myself going “I agree wit this person, so much, he speaks about what I always thought!” and then realized it was me. Ther were times when, I thought “this guy is too angry” or “this guy isn’t explaining himself well”, and I find that I do get so angered by what Disney's doing these days and also that it is hard for me to explain myself well all the time. However, since the posts you are addressing are recent, I do know there is nothing I want to change and as of now at least, that I can explain any better. I feel I have explained things well enough to get the points I really want to. All I need now is for people to actually get it, but if they don't get it, once again I will chuck it up to overlooking, not caring/wanting to, or inability.

Also, similar things you said to me, I thought of of you as I was reading your post. You are not explaining youself, you have no facts, you are making stuff up, you aren’t backing yourself up, and it's still all your opinion. Actually, that's not what I would normally have thought, normally I would have thought "It's possible he's thinking of instances in his head where this is true", but after what you said to me, that's not what went through my head.

[quote=”Disney’s Divinity”] Actually, DDuster has been very critical of the '90s era. I think the only reason he doesn't outright tear it apart is because he grew up with it, and has some fond memories.

And, personally, I do think the films from the '90s do have a certain feel that goes along with the older movies, although they have steep differences. But I agree that the films from the '90s are extremely formulaic--the problem with making so many films right on top of each other, with the same story ideas, and all in the musical vein.

I think something I've noticed about their modern films (as compared to old Disney) is the need to specifically define everything. Like the way every character must be given a specific name, and a specific motivation. I don't find that a detractor, but, taking Mermaid as example, old-Disney probably wouldn't have given Triton and Ursula names at all--they probably would've just been "the King" and "the Sea Witch." In some ways, that vagueness makes a story come across more timeless for some reason. Not that Mermaid needs help.

As far as Tangled goes, Flynn/Eugene is the only weird name in the movie. Mother Gothel has a classic sound to it--I can't remember if this is a name they came up with or that was in the original story.[/quote]

Disney’s Divinity, thank you for being a defender to me, at least in some parts, and especially after something like that posted above went after me. I am a little bit mad about the way they did things in the Renaissance, but for the most part, I truly do like the new things they did, and I would not tear it apart. Most of all, I do feel it the Renaissance kept the Disney Essence in a modern era, while Tangled kept less of the Disney essence in a modern era. If it keeps getting less and less, it just might not be there anymore, so I must speak out now.

You bringing up the names of things in Disney is interesting, because I recall some critic complaining that in Sleeping beauty everything has a name, even the dang raven, Diablo! I see the naming of the Raven and of the Prince (Phillip) showing the direction that the Disney essence was headed, so that naming Triton and Ursula was perfectly in line (I mean, even Cinderella’s stepmother is Lady Tremain and Snow White’s Evil Queen just might be Queen Grimhilde, and Cinderella or Snow White’s princes may just both have the name Charming!) But yes, leaving the names mysterious and iconic do make them feel even more timeless.

Eugene is yet another big problem I have with Tangled, but Mother Gothel was a very Disney thing to keep, that I’m even surprised they kept it, it was from the original story. Yet the name only makes sense in one of the ways Cinderella’s does: that the narrator of the story just calls them that thinking they were always called that. Because Mother Gothel means “godmother” in German, and she’s nowhere near that in the film like she was in the original (when she could have made herself godmother to the child in exchange for the lettuce, or even really been her godmother because she was the couple’s neighbor). In any case, like I said, keeping that name is very Disney, so yay for that!

[quote=”Disney Animation”][quote=”BigOne”] Any complaint you have with Tangled, applies to The Little Mermaid also, and Beauty and the Beast too.[/quote]

That is the point I think you're ignoring Disney Duster. A change is a change, no matter how obvious it may or may not be. The Little Mermaid is as different from it's original source as Tangled, no technicality or haphazard explanation you apply to that will change it. It is not FACT that Disney make the "real" version of classic stories at all, again it's your OPINION. If you don't like Tangled, fine that doesn't bother me, what does is your belief that you need to educate the rest of us and impose your OPINION on us, believing that is fact that we all should agree with. Get it through your head that you are not some protector of Disney tradition, your a fan, just like the rest of us. No doubt you'll make up another vague argument to disagree with everyone again but the fact remains, you still have yet to give any adequate evidence to back up what you're saying.[/quote]

Disney Animation, the kinds of changed Disney made to the old films does matter, because it is not just about any change, it’s about a Disney change, just like it’s not about making any good movie, it’s about making a good Disney movie. The kinds of changes Disney made to the old stories are not the same kinds of changes they made to Tangled, and that is the problem. It can’t just be any change, it has to be a Disney change. And I didn’t say it was a FACT Disney made the real versions, I said it was a FACT that Disney made the films feel like the real versions to many, many people, but Tangled doesn’t feel that way to anyone.

[quote=”Super Aurora”] One complaint I don't get why Duster complained about is Rapunzel and flynn's roles.

He was Rapunzel to be a peasant and Flynn be a Prince. I always thought, what difference it makes since in end they both become Prince/princess, whether we went Duster vision or one we have now.

We had a girl peasant, male prince numerous times in Disney. Flynn being a thief I find refreshing, new and interesting. Only other time Disney had similar roles was in Aladdin.[/quote]

Well, the idea that Rapunzel was a peasant meant she was the lowest of the low and so were her parents. They needed food badly and had to farm it themselves, so it made more sense why Rapunzel’s father had to to steal food to keep his wife and child alive, and why he would need to give the witch his daughter just to get the food later. And then when Rapunzel met a Prince, it meant he was the highest of the high and carried her off to a much better life than she could have ever dreamed of as a peasant, and is far more romantic. As an innocent character who doesn’t steal like a thief who goes from peasant life to horrible tower life, seeing her become a princess feels very good. But the most important reason is just that all the previous Disney films kept these same kinds of backgrounds.

Rapunzel, the kinds of changed Disney made to the old films does matter, because it is not just about any change, it’s about a Disney change, just like it’s not about making any good movie, it’s about making a good Disney movie. The kinds of changes Disney made to the old stories are not the same kinds of changes they made to Tangled, and that is the problem. It can’t just be any change, it has to be a Disney change.

I had no idea what was going on in the last thread until I decided, "a new one's started, maybe I can talk without getting lost in the shuffle". Then when I read Big One's post here, I backtracked the last few pages of the last thread and all I could think was "OMG, it's 'Disney Essence: The Not So Fresh Feeling' all over again".

But to keep this on-topic, Tangled is still playing in our area, and I really want to see it again. Hopefully I can see it for the third time before it's out of theatres.

Noone's stopping you all from talking about other things, like the Academy performance they're supposed to have.

Oh, and thanks for the info. about Gothel's name, Disney Duster.

Big One wrote:

This is actually a very refreshing twist from standard Disney fantasyland movies, which usually have inspired locations from the real world but have things such as dwarves, god-like fairies, dragons, etc. Removing those aspects, kind of gives an audience an easy way into the character's places as Rapunzel and Flynn live in a world where a barbarian could kill or even rape them at any moment in the middle of their journey. Matter of fact, Mother Gothel encouraged Rapunzel not to go out into the world cause it was full of things like that.

I know this is just your personal reaction to the movie, but I don't really see that with Tangled. I mean, I noticed a semi-realistic touch to the background characters--something about the drab colors gave that effect to me--but I don't think there's ever any real fear of these characters by the audience. I mean, for one, most people know what to expect from a Disney film. But, at the same time, we're only presented with this fear by Gothel, who is clearly a villain from the get-go, so noone will take her attempts to scare Rapunzel seriously (which is why they're used more for comedic effect in "MKB").

Oh, and about the fire scene you mentioned, and I've said this before, but that scene is total copy-and-paste from TP&TF. I mean, whether or not you agree if Tangled did it better (I don't, personally), there's no denying it plays on the same plot device. A couple at odds with one another sit and get to know one another by the fire, and realize there's more than meets the eye.

About the Disney feel I talked about earlier, I only think of that as a kind of domestic view. Just about all Disney's movies are more focused on character, emotion, and the simplistic (but more complex because of it, usually). Even something like SitS becomes more about the little things, as well as larger lessons about life, etc. And, of course, humor is another factor that plays a huge role in most all their films (even if it isn't always well-executed, a la Hunchback or HOTR). I think the only one that really breaks that mold is Atlantis (although there's a bit of focus on Milo living up to his grandfather, it really becomes more about details at the end, and you never get to know any of the characters). That being said, I'm not really presenting this as an argument to be debated or to prove you wrong--since this crosses over into extremely subjective territory--but that's always been my personal view on what I think of as "Disney." And nostalgia isn't really why, because I feel the same way with their newest films, too (Bolt, MtR, Brother Bear, TP&TF, Tangled, etc.). But I recognize the huge differences (in music, in structure, in the type of humor, in storytelling, etc).

I disagree with all of this so far. Generally, everything you say about my posts, I think the opposite.

Disney Duster wrote:

I completely disagree.

Disney Duster wrote:

I disagree and generally think the opposite of most of this stuff as well.

STOP REPEATING YOURSELF

Not only is it offensive to the sensibilities of the people on this forum, but it's bad posting conduct. This is a public forum where things only need to be said once, not three times over and over again. Why? Because once you say something once, it stays, and that's pretty much the internet. Repeating yourself is unnecessary and foolish, no matter if your opinion is well thought out or not. If you have a single thing to say to my series of paragraphs, without actually defending yourself, then quote each one of them and say, "I disagree" like I'm doing right now in response.

Disney Duster wrote:

I think that there is a Disney style and a Disney essence that lives on in some movies and other things the company makes after Walt and that they mist try to keep. I believe in it. If there is no Disney essence, i.e. what Disney is, then there is no reason for the company to live on carrying the Disney name, and no reason for any of us to be here unless this was all just about the old Walt Disney movies they keep re-releasing.

The Disney name is a brand, not a honorable deity. At most, there is a "Disney style" in the sense where Disney was the first to do high budget animated feature films. You know why he wanted to do it? He wanted animation to be a respective artform. He didn't want a specific series of traits to define every movie, and it's quite clear if you watch films like Snow White, Fantasia, Pinocchio, Bambi, and Peter Pan side-by-side, that none of these films have anything in common other than the people that worked on them, and have humor and darker themes that far eclipse what most of Disney is doing today.

The only reason why they were kept "family oriented" was because of the crowd the films appealed to. Fantasia was very much an art film that Walt tried to prove, after the high success of Snow White, that animation could be an artform and isn't just for kids (hence all of the violence, nudity, Satan himself, just gritty sh*t), but the movie bombed at the Box Office, and at most was successful in it's 70's re-release to stoners and nostalgic Disney fans.

The point is that Disney wouldn't have wanted Disney to keep churning out children's features, but he wanted them to work outside of the box. Disney would've wanted to see stuff like Lilo and Stitch, The Fox and the Hound, and Tangled or even GRITTIER movies. I honestly believe that if Disney was alive today, then Disney might have a more mature image to them. Disney would support CG animation highly, support anime, and other non-Disney styles, cause he was interested in expanding Disney's range of talent; he wasn't interested in sticking to traditional animation, as the switch to new technology AND a new style in 101 Dalmations showed, Disney wanted to end that era with Sleeping Beauty.

Basically what you're requesting is very un-Disneylike. Disney "essence" is just a marketing ploy and you've fallen for it, misunderstanding and misinforming what Walt Disney would've wanted. There is no Disney essence, and the only reason why they've kept the name is because of how recognized the brand is.

Disney Duster wrote:

Those movies you mentioned are not the only similar ones. All Disney Animated Features have similar messages of innocence, goodness, good winning over evil, belief, and themes of fantasy. Every single Disney Animated Feature features fantasy from either magic or talking animals, but often have both. Magic is in the first four films Walt made (don't forget Dumbo's feather and flying), and Bambi is a prince of the forest, it's all fairy tale like. This continues similarly to the other films. Their imagery is also generally more beautiful and fantasy-like than normal life or like other studios' work.

This is a false misconception. Those aspects aren't exclusive to Disney, nor is beautiful imagery. Disney didn't invent anything new, just put it all into an animated feature. The concept was to bring a painting to life, and Disney was successful at that, making big-budget animation more popular than ever. In that sense, everything is "Disney essence" according to your definition. Everything.

Disney Duster wrote:

I do agree that the Renaissance films feel different from the classic classic Disney, but I still feel that the Renaissance films have become classic and that the Disney essence is kept in them as much as it needs to be.

So it's because they're old, that they're classic?

Listen son, they were called CLASSIC when they were first released to theater. It wasn't because they were Disney in style, but because it revived the Disney brand from the dead with something new and still being of high quality. This is what Tangled effectively did recently, being a HUGE hit both critically and financially.

In the next few years when people remember it as a "classic" will you suddenly change a face with the stream of quality movies that come after it? Does movies aging really effect your opinion? If so you're blinded by unnecessary and illogical nostalgia.

I'll give you FIVE more years till you age to 18 years old, and I'll have this discussion with you. This'll be when you grow up and not let nostalgia cloud your judgment, and have a sharper opinion on things. Till that time, let's keep nostalgia out of this argument, as that is not your strongest asset clearly.

Disney Duster wrote:

Things like The Hunchback of Notre Dame "destroying" a classic are actually keeping the Disney tradition of family-friendlyness and happy endings.

And apparently Tangled isn't family-friendly nor does it have a happy ending.

Nor does it have humor in the style of old Disney...oh wait, it does.

Disney Duster wrote:

That is not a fact. The fact is that in those movies you mentioned the backgrounds of main/major characters were not changed like in Tangled. For example there is a huge difference between a merchant who sells things becoming an inventore who sells things and a prince who becomes a thief. If you cannot see the big difference, that is your inability, which others may share, but alas.

There's also these differences with every Disney film, especially The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Hunchback of Notre Dame, Jungle Book, Hercules, Mulan, Tarzan and Alice in Wonderland are all very worse adaptations of their source material. Saying they have the "Disney essence" isn't an excuse because you have yet to explain what the "Disney essence" actually is or what it should or should not entail, when I've already proved that there is no consistency when it came to the classic Disney movies.

Disney Duster wrote:

The humor (and everything) was more cutting and cynical and ironic and fast in Tangled than in the past.

NO

This is a lie. Mind providing specific examples so I can provide examples that compare to them?

Disney Duster wrote:

I already did that in the past, sometimes I stumbled upon my own posts and started reading them without knowing they were by me, in the search function, and I found myself going “I agree wit this person, so much, he speaks about what I always thought!” and then realized it was me. Ther were times when, I thought “this guy is too angry” or “this guy isn’t explaining himself well”, and I find that I do get so angered by what Disney's doing these days and also that it is hard for me to explain myself well all the time. However, since the posts you are addressing are recent, I do know there is nothing I want to change and as of now at least, that I can explain any better. I feel I have explained things well enough to get the points I really want to. All I need now is for people to actually get it, but if they don't get it, once again I will chuck it up to overlooking, not caring/wanting to, or inability.

Now this is getting comical...

Disney Duster wrote:

Also, similar things you said to me, I thought of of you as I was reading your post. You are not explaining youself, you have no facts, you are making stuff up, you aren’t backing yourself up, and it's still all your opinion. Actually, that's not what I would normally have thought, normally I would have thought "It's possible he's thinking of instances in his head where this is true", but after what you said to me, that's not what went through my head.

Disney Duster, stop sounding like you've just put a series of words through Google Translator.

Get some better grammar, I seriously cannot understand a word you're saying sometimes.

Disney's Divinity:

Disney's Divinity wrote:

I know this is just your personal reaction to the movie, but I don't really see that with Tangled. I mean, I noticed a semi-realistic touch to the background characters--something about the drab colors gave that effect to me--but I don't think there's ever any real fear of these characters by the audience. I mean, for one, most people know what to expect from a Disney film. But, at the same time, we're only presented with this fear by Gothel, who is clearly a villain from the get-go, so noone will take her attempts to scare Rapunzel seriously (which is why they're used more for comedic effect in "MKB").

I disagree, there was nothing comical about Gothel. She was actually likable, but not comical. The "creepy" factor is that you actually find her relationship with Rapunzel heartwarming in a lot of ways, unlike with Frollo or Lady Tremaine where it's established at the very start that they have a horribly dominating relationship with their adopted.

Disney's Divinity wrote:

Oh, and about the fire scene you mentioned, and I've said this before, but that scene is total copy-and-paste from TP&TF. I mean, whether or not you agree if Tangled did it better (I don't, personally), there's no denying it plays on the same plot device. A couple at odds with one another sit and get to know one another by the fire, and realize there's more than meets the eye.

Yeah it was done in Princess and the Frog, but it was done in a lot of other movies too. The difference is that in Princess and the Frog they were frogs, and in Tangled they were full-fledged people. Though I do think Princess and the Frog has a very good relationship between the two central characters, the relationship itself is flawed cause Naveen in particular has absolutely no likable qualities to both the viewer and the Tiana enough for her to fall in love with him. With Rapunzel, Flynn was her very first exposure to the real world, and Flynn is just in it for the pussy ultimately. It makes sense, a naive princess and a worldly thief.

_________________

Last edited by Big One on Sat Feb 05, 2011 3:01 am, edited 2 times in total.

My head is spinning in circles and I think I officially hate Disney now.

Thanks, Disney Duster!

Become a fan of Yensid. It will be everything that Dustified Disney isn't, hence the backwards name.

Also, while I'm glad your broken foot is getting better, I like that it's allowed you to post more. We missed you, Renata! I know you'll probably be off your crutches in a few weeks (?), but don't stay away too long. It's understandable if you can't be a forum regular, but at least stay on recurring status rather than just guest star.

pinkrenata wrote:

Back to more important discussion topics -- who has better hair: Rapunzel or Flynn? Keep in mind, while Rapunzel's mane has magical powers, Flynn's goatee is also magical in its own way.

Hair schmair. Who has better eyes: Rapunzel or Flynn? She's got those big doe eyes and he's got that lean smoldery thing. One is bound to win.

And regarding that bit about the Oscar performance which I overlooked, I do hope that Moore & Levi are dressed as their characters. And it'll surely look amazing when they release the floating lanterns. At least I hope it will.

I had no idea what was going on in the last thread until I decided, "a new one's started, maybe I can talk without getting lost in the shuffle". Then when I read Big One's post here, I backtracked the last few pages of the last thread and all I could think was "OMG, it's 'Disney Essence: The Not So Fresh Feeling' all over again".

I realize that you were making a joke, but I think that the box should read thusly:

"Best. Day. Ever. Douching Solution! Have an organic feminine cleansing experience with ingredients from Mother Gothel's herb garden. Just splash and clean! It's that easy, and it's so natural that you can buy an extra box for your hair! Also works for other personal cleansing options."

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 4 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum